LGTM (lunatic gunner targeting me)
Remove these blank lines.
I’m not seeing unit tests for this.
Unnecessary comment.
BLAM
Ow! Also, this could’ve been a smaller calibur.
Look at that tiny numstat, I’ll finish the review before the CI is even done
I have either written or gotten a variant of every single one of these comments 🫠:
Please include the JIRA task in the commit title.
Did you run any manual testing?
Where’s the PRD link in the commit message?
Can you please split this into multiple smaller commits?
Can you combine these two commits?
Did you email Jon about this because he’s working on that project with Sarah and you might be duplicating efforts.
This should be named BarFoo instead of FooBar.
Why aren’t you using CorporateInternalLib16 that does 90% of this?
Why aren’t you using ThirdPartyPaidLibByExEmployee?
Why aren’t you using StandardLib thing you forgot existed?
All our I/O should be async.
All our hot loop code needs to be sync.
This will increase latency of NonCoreBusinessFlow by 0.01%. can you shave some time off so we can push in feature B also?
Please add a feature flag so we can do gradual rollout.
What operational levers does this have?
Lgtm - just address those comments
Mostly, yes.
I’d like to find a better way to phrase "why aren’t you . . . " questions. It carries an accusatory tone in text, even if you don’t intend that. The answer is almost invariably going to be either “I didn’t know it existed” or “because reason X”. Neither case justifies the accusatory tone. Maybe if the “I didn’t know it existed” answer was something so basic that they really should have known it existed, but probably not even then.
My preferred variation of this is to make it an open question that leaves them in the position of authority, and assumes that they made a deliberate decision.
For example, instead of “Why aren’t you using StandardLib that does 90% of this?”, I would try “Could this be achieved with StandardLib? Seems like it would cover 90% of this”.
Just pull the trigger, we both know how this ends.
